Work on Lund University's establishment in Science Village has continued this year, but with a new focus. At the end of 2024, the boards of LTH and the Faculty of Science decided not to proceed with scenario 5 – a co-location of the Department of Physics and the Department of Chemistry in the area – due to cost considerations and the challenges of running education across two sites.
The project group was therefore given a new assignment: to investigate which additional establishments, beyond NanoLab Science Village, are required for the university to reach critical mass in the area and make full use of the existing facilities. Another part of the task was to assess the conditions for, and feasibility of, joint operational development of the Departments of Physics and Chemistry.
With this as the starting point, the focus has shifted to the university's profile area Light and Materials, with the vision of creating a strong, unified environment for materials science in photon and laser research – located close to the international research facilities MAX IV and ESS. Over the past year, the Stage 2 project group, together with the profile area, has analysed potential scope, laboratory and infrastructure needs and, with the help of architects, developed an initial sketch for a building that could be located next to NanoLab Science Village.
In this interview, Stage 2 project manager Knut Deppert, professor of solid state physics, talks about the group’s work during the year and the next steps ahead.
What main issues has the project group been working on over the past year?
“After the decision in December 2024 not to proceed with scenario 5, the starting point became a proposal from Lund University’s profile area Light and Materials. The vision is to establish a clear and unified environment for materials science in photon and laser research – including semiconductor materials, quantum technology, nanomaterials and light-active materials. We estimated which research groups could exist in this field in 10–30 years and worked on the proposal to assess the scope – the number of people, laboratories and other necessary installations. With the help of architects, we also produced an initial sketch for a building next to NanoLab. All of this is presented in a report that was sent out for consultation on 19 September.”
You held an information meeting on 23 September at the Department of Physics. What questions and concerns did staff raise there?
“That’s right. We presented the report at one of the department’s weekly meetings. The meeting was open to everyone, with the option to join online, and I estimate that 40–50 people participated digitally in addition to those on site. This shows how strongly the issue still engages people. The discussion was lively, and questions focused mainly on a potential division of the department, the conversion of premises at Fysicum, the future of researchers who would not move to Science Village and, of course, the costs of such an establishment.”
The report, now out for consultation, deals with the opportunities and challenges of establishing the profile area Light and Materials. What are its main messages?
“Establishing a research field in a new location is highly complex, and that is something we aim to reflect in the report. We present the entire analysis – from which research groups would be involved in order to form a critical mass, to estimates of building size, rent levels and costs, even though those figures are very rough. Many factors are still missing before we can say with certainty what the actual costs would be. The draft has been circulated to the relevant departments, but it is not confidential – anyone interested in reading and commenting on it is welcome to contact me.”
What is the next step in the project, and what does the timeline look like going forward?
“We are gathering comments until 27 October. After that, we will compile a final report to be submitted on 3 December to the faculty boards of LTH and the Faculty of Science. The boards will discuss it at their meetings on 16 and 17 December, when a decision is expected on the next step in the process.”
What lessons have you learned from previous investigations and dialogues about Science Village?
“There are many. The most important lesson is that a process this complex must be organised and managed in the right way – with the right resources – and with clear responsibilities. It is also crucial that decision-makers familiarise themselves with the issues and request the right material to be able to make well-founded decisions. Finally, if an establishment is carried out in stages, those stages must be synchronised.”